Guest Post on Explaining Money Damages to the Jury
A while ago, I wrote about showing damages to the jury - why are they awarding money?. A standard defense tactic is to complain that the injured party is greedy. "A terrible accident happened and they got injured. Now what do they do?? Come here and ask for money. Money." The defense makes it sound dirty as if that wasn’t the only remedy available.
Michael Atwater wrote a response on how he deals with this standard tactic and explains to the jury why we are asking for money. Take it away Michael:
One of the things that I do in my closing is to first explain the damages and ask the jury for a verdict which fairly compensates my client.
Then I wait for the defense attorney to predictably tell the jury that my client is there looking for money.
When I get back up, I walk over to the jury box and pick up the ambulance bill. I tell the jury that a few days after the accident, while my client was at home recuperating, his wife (or another family member) brought in the mail from the mailbox. As my client is there perusing the mail, he sees a letter from York County EMS.
He recalls that they are the ones who initially treated him at the scene and transported him to the hospital from the accident which was caused by the defendant. He open the envelope and unfolds the paper inside. And what do you think that the EMS folks are seeking from my client as a result of his accident?...........MONEY!
I repeat this with the ER bill and the subsequent bills.
Then I explain to the jury that they must award my client the amount of these bills because he legally owes them and will be left holding the bag for the defendant's actions if the jury doesn't award this money. I go on to explain that this money is owed to and will be paid to the medical providers.
I tell the jury that if they only award an amount equal to the medical bills (the defendant many times concedes that the Plaintiff should get the ER bill), then they have given my client NOTHING.
I re-explain the issues of non-economic damages and again ask the jury for a fair verdict (with a suggestion of what would be fair).
I have had a great deal of success with this approach.
Thanks for the thoughts Mike. I think that’s helpful and a good idea.
I tell the jury that if they only award an amount equal to the medical bills (the defendant many times concedes that the Plaintiff should get the ER bill), then they have given my client NOTHING.
---------------------------------
So what you're saying is that your client should get a windfall. Let's face it, folks, that's what "noneconomic damages" really are. The whole litigation mess could be solved if the law stopped recognizing pain and suffering as compensable. New Zealand has adopted this approach with good results.
Compensation for pain and suffering is a windfall? You lose your leg and you incur $75,000 in medical bills. I guess if a jury awards this person $80,000 they have gotten a windfall. Would you consider that a windfall?
Ron Miller
www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com
I think the comments by B. Monkey (above)are typical of a lot of folks that want to destroy a fair system of compensation.
For all those that think that "pain and suffering" is a false concept, I'd offer them this deal:
You stand still and let me punch you in the face as hard as I can. I'll agree to write you a check for the total "cost" of your injury, which might range from a few cents for some tissues, to a nose job to correct your deviated septum.
Sounds like a great deal, huh?
Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com
www.NCTrialLawBlog.com
